GRIPP2-sjekkliste: Kortskjemaet med 5 elementer brukt i en reell PPI-studie med åpen tilgang

Publisert November 1, 2026

.tp{color:#333333 !important;line-height:1.7 !important;margin:0 0 16px 0 !important}
.th2{color:#0d2137 !important;margin:36px 0 14px 0 !important;line-height:1.3 !important}
.th3{color:#0d2137 !important;margin:24px 0 10px 0 !important;line-height:1.35 !important}
.tl{color:#003057 !important;font-weight:600;text-decoration:underline}
.tt{border-collapse:collapse;width:100%}
.tt th{background-color:#0d2137 !important;color:#ffffff !important;text-align:left;padding:10px 12px !important;font-size:.9rem;border:1px solid #0d2137 !important}
.tt td{color:#333333 !important;padding:9px 12px !important;font-size:.9rem;vertical-align:top;border:1px solid #d8dee6 !important;line-height:1.5}
.tt td.w{background-color:#ffffff !important}
.tt td.g{background-color:#f6f9fc !important}
.tt td.rg{background-color:#f1f8f3 !important}
.tt td.rp{background-color:#fff9ec !important}
.tt td.rn{background-color:#fef1f1 !important}
.tt td.rj{background-color:#f0f4fc !important}
.tt td.vg{background-color:#d9eee0 !important;color:#14532d !important;font-weight:700}
.tt td.vp{background-color:#ffecc2 !important;color:#6b4200 !important;font-weight:700}
.tt td.vn{background-color:#fbd5d5 !important;color:#7f1d1d !important;font-weight:700}
.tt td.vj{background-color:#d6e0f7 !important;color:#1e3a8a !important;font-weight:700}

Ocuco GRIPP2 checklist is the international reporting guideline for patient and public involvement (PPI) in research. Staniszewska and colleagues published it in 2017, in both the BMJ and Research Involvement and Engagement, in two versions, a 34-item long form (GRIPP2-LF) and a five-item short form (GRIPP2-SF).^1,2 The short form is the one most authors need, because most studies involve patients as one part of a larger project and do not study the involvement itself.

Most guides stop at listing the five items. This guide goes further. After the checklist itself, we apply the short form row by row to a real open-access study, published in BMJ Open in 2025, that reports its own patient and public involvement, with the article section beside every verdict.³ The need is real. A 2026 rapid evaluation of 523 papers from one UK university institute found PPI mentioned in the main body of only 21% of them, a lay summary in 10%, and a published GRIPP2 form in just one.⁴

What the GRIPP2 Checklist Is and How the Short and Long Forms Differ

GRIPP stands for Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public. The original GRIPP checklist was revised into GRIPP2 using updated systematic review evidence, a three-round Delphi survey and a final face-to-face consensus meeting. In the Delphi survey, 143 participants agreed to take part in round one, 123 (86%) responded in round two and 112 (78%) in round three. A consensus meeting then brought together 25 experts, among them eight patient partners and carers.¹ Patient partners were also part of the research team that built the guideline, and the authors report their involvement using the short form itself.¹

The Delphi process showed that one checklist could not serve every paper, so the authors split it in two. Studies where involvement is the main focus suit the long form, and studies where it is a secondary or tertiary focus suit the short form.¹ Table 1 sets the two side by side.

Table 1. GRIPP2 short form and long form compared. Content summarised from Staniszewska et al., 2017.

The GRIPP2 checklist is a reporting guideline and not a quality score. Its purpose is to establish whether a reader can find out what you did and what happened, and it does not judge how good the involvement was. According to the authors, including every item in a particular manuscript is sometimes unnecessary or even impossible, so each item should be considered for relevance.¹ Both versions of the GRIPP2 checklist are listed on the EQUATOR-nettverket området.

The Five GRIPP2 Checklist Short Form Items in Plain Language

Each item of the GRIPP2 checklist short form asks for one piece of the story. We paraphrase the wording here, and the original text sits in Table 2 of the open-access paper.¹

Table 2. The five GRIPP2-SF items, paraphrased, with what a reviewer looks for.

Notice what the GRIPP2 checklist short form leaves out. Defining PPI, naming a theory, grading the level of involvement and costing the activity all belong to the long form. Instead, the short form concentrates on the facts a reader needs in order to trust and reuse your account, and the authors show the pattern by reporting their own project in a table with one row per item.¹

Figure 1 shows where each item usually sits in a paper. You can place the short form in the body under the relevant headings or in a separate box, and the original paper adds that a shorter, more specific account is acceptable as long as it holds the key information.¹

Choosing Between the GRIPP2 Checklist Short Form and Long Form

The choice depends on the role involvement plays in your paper. If your study is a randomised trial, a cohort, a diagnostic study or a review, and patients helped to shape it, the GRIPP2 checklist short form is the natural fit. Pair it with the guideline for your design, for example the CONSORT 2025 guide for trials, the SPIRIT protocol guide for protocols, and the STROBE guide for observational studies. If you are unsure which design guideline applies, our beslutningstre for valg av rapporteringsretningslinjer sets out the choice.

If the involvement is itself the study, for example a consultation to set research priorities or a co-design project, the long form is the formal fit, because it asks for the definition, level of involvement, context and process that readers will want. Qualitative and forskning på blandede metoder papers sometimes sit between the two, since patients may be both participants and advisers, and the CASP checklist guide is a useful companion for appraising the qualitative parts. Where the study develops or validates pasientrapporterte utfallsmål, content validity is also covered by a dedicated item set in the Retningslinjer for COSMIN-rapportering.

A note on thesis work. Students whose university requires a patient involvement statement can use the short form as a template for it, and our retningslinjer for rapportering av medisinske avhandlinger shows how reporting guidelines map onto thesis chapters.

Journals and funders also set their own expectations. In the UK, the NIHR describes the UK Standards for Public Involvement, and journals often ask for a short PPI statement, as the BMJ Open article scored below carries.^3,5 A statement of that kind is not a substitute for GRIPP2 reporting. A statement tells the reader that involvement happened, whereas the checklist items tell the reader how.

Worked Example of the GRIPP2 Checklist on a Real Open-Access PPI Study

The article we scored

We chose Mottram and colleagues, published in BMJ Open in July 2025 under the title “Understanding the needs and experiences of young cancer patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals in the UK following childhood fertility tissue preservation (FTP): a qualitative study informed by patient and public involvement and engagement”.³ The licence is CC BY 4.0, confirmed from the Crossref licence record, the licence statement in the article XML and the Europe PMC licence field. Both the abstract and the Results section cite the GRIPP2 guidelines, so the authors themselves treat GRIPP2 as the reporting standard.

Mottram and colleagues describe a consultation that combined one online focus group with one-to-one interviews and email contact, held with parents of children who had stored ovarian or testicular tissue, young adult survivors and clinicians from NHS centres. Two of the authors are listed with the affiliation “PPIE Representative”, so patient and public contributors are among the authors. We found no figure in the article, so we reproduce none, and the supplementary file contains the interview guide only.

How we scored it

Two points about fit. First, because the involvement is the method of this study, the long form is the formal fit under the original guidance, and the article does not say which form it used. We apply the short form because it is the minimum set every paper should carry, and we point out where the long form would ask for more. Second, we score only what a reader can find in the published article and its supplement. A row marked Not reported means we could not find it, and the authors may have recorded it elsewhere.

Each row carries one of four verdicts. rapportert means the information is present and clear. Partly reported means some of it is present, or it is present but not consistent. Domsavgjørelse means reasonable readers could score the row either way, and we explain our reading. ikke rapportert means we found nothing.

Table 3. GRIPP2-SF applied to Mottram et al., BMJ Open 2025 (CC BY 4.0). Quotations are verbatim and no longer than 25 words.

Across 18 rows the tally is 8 Reported, 6 Partly reported, 3 Judgement call and 1 Not reported. Practical facts of method and frank limitations are the strengths of this paper. Gaps cluster in three places, namely internal consistency of numbers and dates, the contribution of the public contributor co-authors, and the step from findings to influence on later work.

What the example teaches

Consistency matters as much as coverage. The involvement section of this paper is easy to read, yet a reader who counts the participants in the Results arrives at 10 and not 12, and the recruitment dates run backwards. Reviewers, editors and patient co-authors check such details first. Before you submit, reconcile every count and date in your GRIPP2 paragraph against the abstract, the methods and the results.

A listed guideline is not a completed one. The article cites GRIPP2, but neither the article nor its supplementary file carries a completed GRIPP2 form. A 2026 rapid evaluation found the same pattern across 523 papers, with only one including a published GRIPP2 form.⁴ Adding the five GRIPP2 checklist rows as a short subsection or a box costs under 300 words and settles the question for the reader.

Say what the public contributors did. Naming two public contributors as authors is good practice, and describing their tasks would turn a statement into evidence. The methods item of the short form exists for exactly that purpose.

Reflection is the item most often skipped. A paragraph that says what the team would change next time costs little and is the one part of the GRIPP2 checklist that helps the next team directly.

How to Write Your Own GRIPP2 Checklist Statement in Five Paragraphs

A GRIPP2 checklist statement can be as brief as one paragraph per item. Adapt the generic skeleton below to any design.

• Mål. One or two sentences on why you involved patients or the public, for example to shape the outcomes, to test the wording of materials or to set priorities.
• Metoder. Who took part and how many, how they were recruited, what they did, at which stages of the study, how often they met, how they were paid or supported, and who from the team worked with them.
• Resultater. Changes that followed, such as an outcome added or a consent form rewritten, and anything that did not work or was not taken up, with the reason.
• Discussion and conclusions. Your judgement of how far involvement influenced the study, with positive and negative effects.
• Reflections. What went well, what did not, and what you would advise another team to do differently.

Place the paragraph in the Methods section or in a separate box, and keep a one-line pointer in the journal’s PPI statement field if it has one. A lay summary alongside the abstract is a further sign of good practice, since the 2026 evaluation found one in only 10% of papers.⁴

Common mistakes with the GRIPP2 checklist

• Citing the GRIPP2 checklist in the text without supplying the items or a completed form.
• Listing every possible stage of involvement (design, conduct, reporting, dissemination) without saying which one applied.
• Reporting only positive outcomes, which leaves item 3 and item 4 half answered.
• Using the long form for a paper where involvement is a minor part, or the short form for a PPI-focused study, without saying why.
• Leaving participant counts, dates or roles in the involvement paragraph out of step with the rest of the manuscript.

Professional Support for GRIPP2 Reporting

Reporting involvement well with the GRIPP2 checklist starts before the manuscript. Key design questions are who to involve, at which stage and how to record what changed, and they are easier to settle at the protocol stage than after data collection. Two Editverse services map onto that. One is a methodology consultation, useful when you are planning sampling, data collection and validity for a qualitative or mixed methods study that includes patient input. The other is substantive editing of the manuscript, including the involvement paragraph. Editverse editing and writing support aligns with ICMJE, COPE and GPP 2022, and with the ethics requirements of your institution and country.^6,7

Konklusjon

The GRIPP2 checklist short form asks five things of any paper that involved patients or the public, namely the aim, the methods, the results, the influence on the study and a critical reflection. Our worked example shows what scoring against the GRIPP2 checklist looks like in practice. A published, open-access paper can describe its recruitment and format clearly and own its limitations, and still leave a reader unsure of the participant count, the dates, the role of its public contributor authors and the lessons for others. Plan the involvement with the five items in view, write one paragraph for each when you draft, and run a consistency pass before you submit. A reader who finds every item in minutes can trust and reuse your account of the involvement.

Ofte Stilte Spørsmål

How many items does the GRIPP2 checklist have?

The short form, GRIPP2-SF, has five items. The long form, GRIPP2-LF, has 34 items grouped in eight sections.

When should the GRIPP2 short form be used and when the long form?

Use the GRIPP2 checklist short form when patient and public involvement is a secondary or tertiary focus of your study, and the long form when involvement is the main focus, for example in a PPI consultation or a co-design project.

Is the GRIPP2 checklist the same as a journal patient and public involvement statement?

No. A journal statement tells the reader that involvement took place. The GRIPP2 items describe the aim, methods, results, influence and reflections, so they give the reader the detail. Many authors write both, and keep them consistent.

Does a journal require a completed GRIPP2 form?

It depends on the journal. Check the author instructions. The guideline allows the items to appear in the body of the paper under the relevant headings or in a separate box, and a shorter account is acceptable if it holds the key information.

Can the GRIPP2 checklist be used for a systematic review or a trial?

Yes. The short form was designed for any study design in which patients or the public contributed, and it sits alongside the design guideline, such as PRISMA for reviews or CONSORT 2025 for trials.

Where is the official GRIPP2 checklist published?

The paper that introduces both forms is open access in Research Involvement and Engagement and also appeared in the BMJ in 2017. Both versions are listed on the EQUATOR Network website.

What do reviewers most often miss in a GRIPP2 statement?

In our worked example the weakest rows were consistency of numbers and dates, the tasks of public contributor co-authors, and lessons for other teams. Check those three first.

{“@context”: “https://schema.org”, “@type”: “FAQPage”, “mainEntity”: [{“@type”: “Question”, “name”: “How many items does the GRIPP2 checklist have?”, “acceptedAnswer”: {“@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “The short form, GRIPP2-SF, has five items. The long form, GRIPP2-LF, has 34 items grouped in eight sections.”}}, {“@type”: “Question”, “name”: “When should the GRIPP2 short form be used and when the long form?”, “acceptedAnswer”: {“@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “Use the GRIPP2 checklist short form when patient and public involvement is a secondary or tertiary focus of your study, and the long form when involvement is the main focus, for example in a PPI consultation or a co-design project.”}}, {“@type”: “Question”, “name”: “Is the GRIPP2 checklist the same as a journal patient and public involvement statement?”, “acceptedAnswer”: {“@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “No. A journal statement tells the reader that involvement took place. The GRIPP2 items describe the aim, methods, results, influence and reflections, so they give the reader the detail. Many authors write both, and keep them consistent.”}}, {“@type”: “Question”, “name”: “Does a journal require a completed GRIPP2 form?”, “acceptedAnswer”: {“@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “It depends on the journal. Check the author instructions. The guideline allows the items to appear in the body of the paper under the relevant headings or in a separate box, and a shorter account is acceptable if it holds the key information.”}}, {“@type”: “Question”, “name”: “Can the GRIPP2 checklist be used for a systematic review or a trial?”, “acceptedAnswer”: {“@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “Yes. The short form was designed for any study design in which patients or the public contributed, and it sits alongside the design guideline, such as PRISMA for reviews or CONSORT 2025 for trials.”}}, {“@type”: “Question”, “name”: “Where is the official GRIPP2 checklist published?”, “acceptedAnswer”: {“@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “The paper that introduces both forms is open access in Research Involvement and Engagement and also appeared in the BMJ in 2017. Both versions are listed on the EQUATOR Network website.”}}, {“@type”: “Question”, “name”: “What do reviewers most often miss in a GRIPP2 statement?”, “acceptedAnswer”: {“@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “In our worked example the weakest rows were consistency of numbers and dates, the tasks of public contributor co-authors, and lessons for other teams. Check those three first.”}}]}

Referanser

1. Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3:13. doi:10.1186/s40900-017-0062-2. PMID: 29062538. PMCID: PMC5611595. CC BY. PMCs fulltekst.
2. Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ. 2017;358:j3453. doi:10.1136/bmj.j3453. PMID: 28768629. PMCID: PMC5539518.
3. Mottram R, Feltbower R, Jones GL, Gelcich S, McLean K, Kelly C, et al. Understanding the needs and experiences of young cancer patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals in the UK following childhood fertility tissue preservation (FTP): a qualitative study informed by patient and public involvement and engagement. BMJ Open. 2025;15(7):e088025. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-088025. PMID: 40721259. PMCID: PMC12306308. CC BY 4.0. PMCs fulltekst.
4. Scott HM, Price L, Ogden M, Bharadia T, Burke P, Horne R, et al. A rapid evaluation of the reporting and publishing practices of patient and public involvement and engagement in health research within a UK university institute. Res Involv Engagem. 2026;12(1):35. doi:10.1186/s40900-026-00853-0. PMID: 41691358. PMCID: PMC13011311. Facts only are cited. PubMed.
5. National Institute for Health and Care Research. UK Standards for Public Involvement. Available at sites.google.com/nihr.ac.uk/pi-standards.
6. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. Available at icmje.org/recommendations.
7. DeTora LM, Toroser D, Sykes A, Vanderlinden C, Plunkett FJ, Lane T, et al. Good Publication Practice (GPP) guidelines for company-sponsored biomedical research, 2022 update. Ann Intern Med. 2022;175(9):1298-1304. doi:10.7326/M22-1460. PMID: 36037471.